Irancare

About Me: Have some academic background in International Development (At BS Level) and International Relations (At MA Level). In addition to extensive knowledge about Islam (Specially its Shiite Branch) and the Middle East, I have considerable expertise in Planning, Policy Analysis and Risk Management. But I have An Extraordinary Talent in Conflict Resolution & Problem Solving. Follow me on Twitter: @MSirani for the latest analysis.

In the next coming decades, our world system will go through various changes. Based on my calculation & analysis, in the next coming decades, we will not have some super powers in a way that currently we are observing. The world will be divided between various regions & REGIONAL POWERS. The time between now and reaching this hypothetical historical point (A New World System) will take couple of decades and reaching this point will not be a peaceful, soft & easy process. To reach such a point, we will pass through many tensions & conflicts in various parts of the world, mainly in Asia, the Middle East, The Central Asian Countries, Africa & South America.
Following some years or maybe decades tensions & conflicts, the world will be divided between various regions & regional powers. This hypothetical era will be a more stable & peaceful time in comparison with our current world system in different terms. As an example, in such an era, the number of tension & conflict between two or more states in one region will decrees. On the contrary, most of the tensions & conflicts will be between regions & regional powers. This hypothetical era will be accompanied with some inevitable changes. Among them the two following issues could be mentioned.

A- Some Changes in our International Institutions, Laws, Conventions & Regulations.
Following reaching this point, we will be forced to perform many changes in our international institutions, laws, regulations & conventions in different terms, scales & scopes. We will highly likely dissolve the current United Nations with current framework. And instead will develop two different (But Parallel) International Institutions as follows:
A- Some regional institutions (For each region)
B- Some Global institutions, which will be used by representatives of various regions for solving the global issues, better coordination & cooperation between various regions, or solving the conflict & tension between two or more regions with each other , etc etc. In this respect, i can say, our international institutions will be smaller with less bureaucracy, less budget, but with more efficiency.
One of the most important characteristics of this era will be the fact that The Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council will lose their veto rights. Based on this characteristics and some other factors, i can say with high certainty that such an era will be a more fair, stable & peaceful era in comparison with our current world system.

B- The Rise of Secessionist Movement/s in the USA:
In such a hypothetical era, the USA will become a heavily indebted regional power. Following this hypothetical event, some rich states within the USA might come to the conclusion that the overall cost of their remaining within the framework of the United States is more than its benefit in various terms. In such an event, the idea that all migrants, who have migrated to the USA from various parts of the world, should mandatory stay together & remain united in order to be able to defeat the native Indians or some European Colonial rules, does not exist anymore. These issues along with many other social, cultural & political factors will highly likely convince some rich states to secede from the United States. Whether this process of secession will be peaceful like former Czechoslovakia or chaotic depends on many factors and is hard to predict at the time i write this short note. But i'm strongly believe it will happen.

M. Sirani 16.11.2018 Note: At time of writing, i have collected four solid reasons, which the combination of them would strongly underpin my hypothesis in this regard.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Khashoggi was either a member of Muslim Brotherhood or a sympathizer to Muslim Brotherhood and at the same time an opponent to current Saudi political system. Considering harsh & tough reaction of Saudi government with regards to its opponents, Khashoggi had decided to leave Saudi Arabia and live in exile; a type of self-exiled person.

Considering this brief details, the death of Khashoggi raises some seqrious questions as follows. Khashoggi knew that his life was in danger; as such he left his motherland Saudi Arabia & lived in exile. At the same time, Khashoggi had enough knowledge and information about how Saudi government deals with its opponents; he knew about arrest, torture and in some case abduction of some dissidents by Saudi authority. Despite all these information, Khashoggi entered Saudi embassy in Turkey to obtain a legal document. Why?
Khashoggi could have given legal & legitimate authority to a third person or a lawyer for example to go to Saudi Embassy and obtain that necessary document in a secure & safe manner. Khashoggi didn't do that and this event led to his death.

From this explanation, we might come to another hypothesis. So this might be the real story.
Khashoggi knew that Saudi authority would try to abduct or either kill him in the Saudi Embassy. Despite this threat & danger, he entered Saudi embassy. Khashoggi was a type of suicide bomber. He didn't carry any bomb with himself inside the embassy; but he knew that either by his abduction or death by Saudi officials in the embassy, he would be able to cause a huge damage to Saudi Arabia in different terms.
Some other evidences underpin my argument in this regard. This horrific event happened inside Saudi embassy in Turkey; a country that openly & publicly supports Muslim Brotherhood. Turkish authority or another third party recorded the voice and obtained some video clip from this event. Turkish authority had all the activities of Saudis under its watch & surveillance. They watched & controlled every single move of Saudis including the arrival of 15 Saudis with two private planes , etc etc etc.

In my opinion, the entire this tragic event was a type of orchestrated trap for Saudi government & Saudi Crown prince. And inexperienced & adventurist Saudi Crown Prince felt badly in this trap. To put it simply, by this suicidal mission, Khashoggi caused a huge explosion and accordingly enormous damages to Saudi Arabia in different terms. If Khashoggi had entered Saudi embassy with 1000 kg TNT and exploded there, he could have not caused such a damage to Saudi Arabia & its political system as he has done now.

Dr. Paul Ehrlich states “The battle to feed al of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s
hundreds of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked
upon now”. He argues “Ifwe don’t do something dramatic about
population and environment, and do it immediately, there’s just no hope that
civilization will persist” (1974).

Jared Diamond says population growth and
overusing natural resources lead to social collapse. Dr. Donald Aiken says “The government has to step in and tamper
with religious and personal convictions---maybe even impose penalties for every
child a family has beyond two” (wattenberg,1974). Some other scholars go
further and attribute overpopulation to other causes such as: poverty,
unemployment, environmental degradation, economic stagnation and political
instability.

These are well known statements we hear from
some academic institutions and media.Some questions arise from these statements. Is
population growth a threat for mankind? Is the world overpopulated? Is
overpopulation a real threat or it is just a myth which diverts attention away
from the real causes? Are these problems mentioned above, the effects of
overpopulation or is overpopulations itself an effect? These are some questions
which this paper will attempt to analyze. Before we begin the main discussion,
it would be useful to have some information about the concept of “Overpopulation”,
and some theories about population size through our history. Where did these
views derive from and who introduced it for the first time? In the next section
some of these theories will be briefly explained.

1-The History of population’s Theories:

The concept of population size and population
growth has been interesting subject for mankind since ancient time. Two main
reasons have been the motivation for population size: Religious dogma and
power. Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam have encouraged their followers to
be “Fruitful and Multiply” and populate the Earth. On the other hand, some
ancient civilizations such as Greeks and Romans advocated maximizing population
size in order to become more powerful and stronger than other nations (Britannica,2009).

1-1- Mercantilists:

Between the 16th and 18th
century most European societies were dominated by mercantilists. This economic group
believed that large population provides larger labour supply, markets, armies
for defence and foreign expansion such as colonialization. Their slogan was “The larger the population, the richer the
nation”. Therefore, most of these countries emphasized and focused on
population growth (Britannica,2009).

1-2-
Physiocrats:

In 18th century another school of
thought that was popular in Europe, was “The Physiocrats”.

The Physiocrats were economists who believed
that the wealth of a nation is derived from the value of agricultural land and
agricultural development. This group argued that economic wealth can be
achieved from land and agriculture not from population growth (Britannica,2009).

1-3-
Utopians:

Another school of thought in the 18th century
was the Utopians. This group believed that humans are mature enough to manage
their own lives. Therefore, societies do not need coercive institutions such as
police, law, property ownership and family. They believed that all amount of
resources must be controlled by all people in society and if there is any
limits in population growth, it must be established by people in society. One
of the leading proponents of this view was Daniel Malthus the father of Thomas
Robert Malthus the founder of social demography. T.R. Malthus was influenced by
his father to ideas about population size, food production and relationship
between these two concepts. (Britannica,2009). Now we have some knowledge about
these theories it would be useful to know who explored modern demography for
first time. In the next section Malthus’s population theory will be discussed.

2-Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834):

Malthus was a British political economist and
demographer. His major contribution to economic and social thought came in the
essay “The principles of population”. This controversial theory made
him one of the central figures in population debates in the 19th and
20th centuries (Elwell,2006). Today some scholars known as
“Neo-Malthusians” use Malthus’s theory and assert that contemporary problems
such as poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries are the
effects of overpopulation. In order to understand the Neo-Malthusian view is
better to have some knowledge about Malthus’s social theory.

2-1- Malthus Social Theory :( Elwell,2006)

The population theory of Malthus has been
rejected by many scholars, but without any doubt it can be said that his ideas
have had important effects, not only in demography, but also in public policy,
classical & neoclassical economy and biology. In 1798, Malthus published
the first edition of his essay anonymously. In that time, some Utopians
scholars likeM. Condorcet and W. Godwin
had published their views and predicted a future world without disease,
anguish, melancholy, or resentment (Leathers&Foster,2004). In fact, Malthus
wrote his essay in response to the Utopians, but the lack of empirical evidence
and anonymity of the writer caused that this essay became the target of broad
discussion and attack. These criticisms stimulated Malthus to collect more data
and evidence in order to better defends his hypothesis, which he pursued in
future editions of his essay. In his essay, Malthus analyzed the relationship
between population growth and food resources.

According to Malthus, the humankind has two
basic needs: food and sex. The first need leads humankind to production of food
and the later to reproduction of children. Malthus stated “The rate of reproduction
is higher than the production of food”. Malthus argued that the population size
(unchecked) increases in a geometrical ratio ie.2,4,8,16,32,64 and food
resources increase in an arithmetical ratio ie.1,2,3,4,5,6. He stated that the
population will be double in size in next 25 years and our food resources will
not be enough to feed all the population. Therefore, we must check the
population growth by using two types of control: Preventive and Positive checks
which both have negative consequences for individuals as well as
societies.

2-2- Preventive
Check:

According to Malthus, the preventive check can
be done in different ways. The ideal type for Malthus was, to practice the
celibacy before marriage and marry late until a couple can support their children.
Malthus believed this action creates misery for humankind. He stated that
desire for sex is one of the basic human needs and constraining this desire
leads the individual towards “unnatural acts” such as prostitution, and the use
of birth control. Malthus argued that by using preventive check some other
problems will b occur in society.

First it increases unhappiness among men and women.
Second it decreases life expectancy, as an effect of sexually transmitted diseases
and drugs. Finally, the practice of non-productive sexuality destroys the
virtues and purity of manners in family as well as society (Elwell,2006).

2-3- Positive
Check:

Malthus stated that there must be balance
between the population size and subsistence from the environment. He argued
that the lack of space for grows and nutrition enforces animals and plants use
this type of check and they do not feed their offspring. In humankind this
positive check would be some natural or artificial disasters which reduce the
large number of human populations such as, famine, disease, hard labour,
misery, war and unwholesome occupations.

Based on these statements Malthus illustrated
cyclical relationship between production and reproduction. He argued when the
food production increases, the price of food will decrease and this easy access
to cheap food stimulates the families to have more children. The rise in
population creates two problems. First the demand for food increases and as a
result the prices go up and second the number of workers increases and as a
result the wages decrease and through an unfair competition the new labourers
will work harder, longer and cheaper.

These events induce the farmers to increase the
productivity by hiring more workers and putting more land under cultivation. And
again, this increase in productivity stimulates reproduction. According to
Malthus, this cycle is not static because some other events such as wars,
disease, economic cycles, technological breakthrough and government action can
influence and disrupt it. Malthus claimed that this problem has always existed
and will continue in the future societies. Thus, he concluded that inequality
lies in the structure of human societies and that equal distribution of wealth
and resources to all can not be achieved.

He stated that every society needs a working
class and the labourers are responsible to wrest resources from nature. He
believed that self-interest and private property provide stimulation and
motivation for human thought and action. In this case, Malthus stated that
inequality is a natural phenomenon in the social structure of human society. In
fact, Malthus could not analyze logically the cause of poverty in his social
theory, although, he did not believe that the poor people were responsible for
their condition and he said the poor “Are the unhappy persons who, in the great
lottery of life, have drawn a blank” (Elwell,2006).

As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, Malthus’s
theory was controversial idea in those years at different fields. However, Malthus
was a proponent of free medical care for the poor, universal education and
democratic institutions which in those years were radical ideas, but many scholars
such as Marx criticized him and some religious institutes accused him to
blasphemy. Marx harshly criticized Malthus theory and called him a “Miserable
parson” guilty of publishing “Vile and infamous doctrine”. Marx stated that
these problems which Malthus states occur only in capitalist systems. He argued
that under socialism and with functioning state the surplus product of labour
and wealth will be distributed equally among all people in society and this will
eliminate the poverty (Britannica,2009) On the contrary there were some other
scholars which appreciated Malthus ideas. Charles Darwin the founder of
Evolution Theory acknowledged a great debt to Malthus in the development of his
theory of Natural Selection (Britannica). Besides social theory, it can be said
that Malthus was one of the scholars during the Enlightenment that provided
rational explanations for social development. Like a philosopher he used reason
and empirical data to postulate abstract theories in different fields in
society such as economy, population and the relationships between them.

This was
a short explanation about Malthus and his social theory. In the next section
the view of Neo-Malthusians will be explained. This school of thought believes
that all contemporary problems are the effects of overpopulation.

3- Neo-Malthusians view:

One of the most influential views at the
present time about population is Neo-Malthusianism.The
proponents of this view based on Malthus social theory argue that rapid
population growth causes different social, environmental, economic and
political problems.

P. Ehrlich in his book” The Populations Bomb” (1974)
states that:

“Remember, overpopulation does not normally
mean too many people for the area of a country, but too many people in relation
to the necessities and amenities of life. Overpopulation occurs when numbers
threaten values”.

He continues that the world is running out of
food because of overpopulation and according to him “the battle to feed
humanity is lost”. He states that half of the world population suffers from
little food and scarcity of proteins and vitamins in their diet.

Furthermore, he continues that rapid population
growth has influenced the face of the Earth and as a result some organisms both
plants and animals are now extinct. Based on these explanations, he concludes
that environmental degradation has negative impacts on human life not only
physically but also mentally and as a result we are witnessing more riots,
rising crime rates, disaffection of youth, and increased drug usage in our
societies (Ehrlich,1974).

Some other Neo-Malthusian scholars suggest that
government must be more involved and, in some cases, must impose punishments
for people who do not follow the population control program.

One of the strongest positions on population
control comes from Dr. Garret Hardin when he says “In the long run voluntarism
is insanity. The result will be continued uncontrolled population growth” (Ben.Wattenberg,1974).
In this particular case it means that it is necessary for a government to
enforce the people to have fewer children.

These scholars blame the overpopulation in developing
countries for the responsible cause of environmental degradation. In different
international and domestic conferences, they argue that deforestation and air
pollution occurring in developing countries, threaten the whole world. According
to this view, the overexploitation of lands and natural resources causes these
environmental problems. Generally, the whole Neo-Malthusian view can be
illustrated more in paragraph below. This paragraph states that:

“In the New Malthusian view it is argued that
rapid population growth results in widespread poverty, economic stagnation,
environmental destruction, rapid urbanization, unemployment, and political
instability. During the years of Cold War and the Vietnam War, in particular
the view prevailed that overpopulation, resulting in mass hunger, was a
breeding ground for revolutionary activity”.(Hewitt&
Smyth,2000).

At this point we have some knowledge about
Malthus social theory and Neo-Malthusian view. In order to illustrate more our discussion,
it would be useful to have some knowledge about the theory of demographic
transition.

4- The Demographic Transition Theory :(Leathers&Foster,2004)

This theory classifies the population growth by
considering the fertility and mortality. The first formulation was explored by
English demographer Warren Thompson in 1929 and later developed by Frank
Notestein in 1945 (Britannica,2009). According to this view the World
population growth passes through four stages.

4-1-
Stage I

Preindustrial
stage: In this stage both
fertility and mortality are unchecked. The birth rates are higher than death
rates. However, some disasters such as wars, famines and epidemic diseases
cause population loss, but population grows slowly.

4-2-
Stage II

Mortality
Decline before fertility decline: In this stage by help of better public medical care, better food, and
water supplies, death rates decrease and life expectancy increases. If the
birth rate does not change by some disastrous events, the population will grow
rapidly.

4-3-
Stage III

Fertility
decline: As a result of more
urbanization and industrialization the birth rate usually decreases because
more people are interested to limit their family size. Maybe periodic
population grows rapidly, but when the death rates and death rates are even the
population grows slowly and may even fall to zero or below.

4-4-
Stage IV

Modern
Stage: In this level, both the
birth rate and the death rate are low and population size is stable. The family
size is small at about two children per family and if the fertility rate
increases, population size increases slowly. The figure 1 below illustrates the demographic transition theory.

Population

Time

A BC D

Figure 1: Demographic transition theory
:(Leathers&Foster,2004)

A: Stage I: High birth &death rates.

B: Stage II: Birth rate high, declining
mortality.

C: Stage III: Declining birth rate.

D: Stage IV: Low birth&death rate.

There are several reasons which confirm the
demographic transition theory. Below are some examples that will be discussed. Based on demographic transition it can be concluded
that:

First, developed countries passed through these
stages and are at stage IV and in some cases even the birth rate is less than
death rate in these countries. For example, statistic shows that Sweden
before 1805 was in the last point of stage A with almost equal birth and death
rates. From 1805 until 1875 Sweden
passed Stage B, when the death rates decreased. Since 1875 until 1975 was Sweden
in stage C, as birth rates decreased faster than death rates. Since then until
now is Sweden
in stage D and that means birth and death rates are almost equal and it can be
said that the birth rate is less than the death rate.

Second, a comparison of population growth rates
between developed and developing countries show that the birth rate in
developing countries is higher than developed countries.

These are the population growth rates of three
continents in the period 1995-2000.

- Africa: 2.35 percent per year

- Asia: 1.41 percent per year

- Europe: 0.02 percent per year

These statistics shows also that developed countries
(Europe) are in the last stage (D) of
demographic transition.(Leathers&Foster,2004)

In order to illustrate more differences, let us
compare two countries from developed and developing countries, Norway and Afghanistan.

Year

Population growth rate (%)

Year

Population growth rate (%)

2000

0.5

2000

3.54

2001

0.49

2001

3.48

2002

0.47

2002

3.43

2003

0.46

2003

3.38

2004

0.41

2004

4.92

2005

0.4

2005

4.77

2006

0.38

2006

2.67

2007

0.363

2007

2.625

2008

0.35

2008

2.626

(Norway)(Afghanistan)

Table 1 :( (Indexmundi.com,2009)

The table 1
illustrates that the population growth rate in Afghanistan
is much higher than in Norway.
Other statistics released by some international organizations also confirm that
population growth in developing countries is much higher than developed
countries. But these questions still remain: Is there any relevant relationship
between Malthus, Neo-Malthusian theories and development in the third world
countries? Are developing countries poor because of overpopulation? Is
overpopulation a cause or an effect?What are the causes of overpopulation? These questions will be discussed in next
section.

5- Discussion:

Malthus
can be named as the founder of modern demography, but there are some
contradictions in his social theory. He did not predict the technological,
social and cultural development and their effects in human life. At the present
time based on technological inventions in different fields of science,
agricultural production has increased enough to feed the total population in
the world. Different medical methods have been explored in order to limit or
prevent pregnancy such as contraception, sterilization and abortion.

On the
other hand, these scientific developments have been accompanied with social and
cultural progressive changes such as small family size.

Logical philosophy states that when we are
facing a problem, the use of the cause and effect formula would be the best
alternative. Otherwise, the problem will not be solved fundamentally. One of
the major contradictions in Neo-Malthusian view is that they do not analyze the
poverty and overpopulation in developing countries through this casual reasoning
formula. In fact, the Neo-Malthusian view tries to divert the public discourse
from the real causes of poverty by emphasizing the effects of overpopulation.

However, based on statistics published by some
international organizations such as UN it can be derived that population growth
rates in developing countries are higher than developed countries, but it has
to be emphasized that overpopulation is one of the effects of poverty. It means
the people are not poor because they have many children; but have many children
because they are poor. In order to highlight more our discussion, let us
examine the cause of overpopulation.

5-1- Some
of The causes of overpopulation:

As mentioned above the population growth is
higher in developing countries. There are some socio-economic and political
factors involved in this case. Here below some of them will be briefly
explained:

The high infant mortality rates in developing
countries enforce the women to have more births in order to be sure that some
of children survive until adulthood.

5-1-2-
Severe poverty forces the parents to have more children.

Because the children have economic values for
parents and in some cases, they may relieve their mothers from work. In
developing countries, children begin to work from the age of 6 or 7 years old.
For example, in Iran
in the countryside the children are responsible for some activities like:
Working on land, cleaning, caring for chickens, ducks, domestic animals, and
younger children. In the city, some of children have to work for wages in
different occupations such as tailors, barbers, etc.

5-1-3-
Children have more security in elderly time for parents.

There is no welfare and social security for
people especially for the elderly. The children (especially sons) are
responsible to provide security for their parents during their old age.
Therefore, parents try to have more children in order to ensure their future.

5-1-4-
Having more children equals more power during a conflict:

The lack of rule of law and instability forces
the parents to have more children in order to defend themselves against other
ethnic group offences. The countryside in Iran could be an example where some
families are proud and strong because they have 7 or 8 sons.

5-1-5-
Gender inequality:

The lack of good governance and proper education
has created traditional and patriarchal societies in developing countries. As a
result, the women have unequal rights and this has created social and cultural
obstacles for women. In some developing countries, young women are forced to
marry under the age of 18 years old and the best role for them is to be a “Good
mother”. In most of developing countries, they do not have even control over
their bodies (fertility and sexuality) and abortion is prohibited for them. (Iran
based on Islamic law).

Based on the statements noted above, it can be
concluded that overpopulation in developing countries is an effect of poverty
itself. In order to solve this problem, we have to find a fundamental solution
for abolishing poverty.

6- Conclusion:

In conclusion I have to imply that there is no
relevant relation between these Malthusian theories and development in the
third world countries and overpopulation can not be the cause of
underdevelopment and poverty. Based on the demographic transition theory and
other statistics published by international organizations like UN it can be
said that population growth rates in developing countries are higher than
developed countries. This statement also shows that countries with high income
have less overpopulation problem. As it noted in this paper the Neo-Malthusian
view claims that rapid population growth causes different problems like,
Poverty, economic stagnation, environmental destruction, air pollution etc.

As I explained in this paper all these problems
are the results of underdevelopment and poverty in third world countries.
Poverty is the cause of overpopulation and criminal activities. When people in
third world countries do not have access to clean energy, they use fuel-wood. When
they can not afford fertilizers for their agricultural land, they burn the land
and leave it for one year to be suitable and strong enough again for
cultivation.

Here I have to emphasize that the only solution
for all these problems is sustainable development. Sustainable development can
be achieved through good governance.

In order to achieve sustainable development
some policies must be taken seriously and simultaneously by governments, including:

Monday, September 10, 2018

There are many weaknesses & loopholes within our current international institutions, laws, regulations & conventions. As a result of these weaknesses, we are unable to deal with many challenges in a proper, sustainable & fundamental manner.
Needless to prove & explore this statement. Some issues such as influx of refugees & migrants from developing countries toward developed world, widening gap between poor & rich people, large numbers of unsolved & prolonged conflicts & tensions in various parts of the world, global economic down turn, the rise of right wing political systems in many areas, etc are just a few examples, which clearly confirm my statement noted above.

We should also bear in mind that our international institutions, laws, regulations & conventions are not the only actors & factors, which form, shape and determine our world system. There are some powerful actors in our world, who their policies at domestic & foreign affairs would impact our world system in different terms and scales. This process could be negative or positive for some or for many actors around the world.

Considering the brief explanation noted above, our contemporary world system has faced some serious problems as follows. A- Weak & incompetent international institutions, laws, regulations & conventions, B- Lots of problems & conflicts around the world as a result of these weaknesses C- A weak super power with some rising powers. Before the victory of D. Trump in 2016 election, the USA was declining. On the contrary , the EU & China (Plus its bloc) were on the rise in different terms. Both China & the EU were trying to shape the world system towards their own economic & Geo-strategical interests, without causing a major conflict with the USA or even with each other. The victory of D. Trump and his policies have interrupted the plans of China & the EU at regional and global level in different terms. To put it simply, we are currently observing a world system, wherein there are multidimensional conflicts between various actors including the powerful actors and none of these powerful actors is able to impose its hegemony on other ones. The existence of simultaneously weakness & conflict between powerful states, would automatically facilitate an opportunity for some regional actors to try to expand its influence in their neighborhood. This issue would cause some regional tension & conflict in some parts of the world as well. In this respect, Iran & North Korea could be mentioned. Based on this brief explanation, i can say that there are many similarities between our current world and the world between 1930s & 40s. As such, i strongly believe, our world system has reached an extremely critical & dangerous juncture. In order to prevent a major explosion in our current world like those world wars in the past, we should work on two major issues as follows.

A- Imposing some reforms, adjustments (and in some areas totally change) in our international institutions, laws, conventions & regulations.
B- Designing and implementing some new plans & programs for some parts or our world particularly those conflictual areas like the Middle East & Africa.

By performing these issues, not only we would be able to solve many of ongoing problems & conflicts in various parts of the world but also we would create a new world system, which is more peaceful & stable. Should this happen, we would be able to deal with many challenges in an appropriate, sustainable and fundamental manner.

Due to miscalculation, misanalysis, wishful thinking & adventurism, the plans of the USA, Israel, Arab States, Iran & Russia with regards to various tensions & conflicts across the entire Middle East will fail without any exception. This includes the multiple efforts of the UN in the region as well. The results would be only more collateral damages, destruction, more refugees, displaced people and broader battlefield; and nothing else.

In this respect, i have designed a Multi-phase plan, which not only can solve some of the ongoing conflicts in the region in a sustainable & proper manner but also would prevent the occurrence of many horrific events across the Middle East & some parts of Africa in the future. Based on many reasons including technical point of view, my plan should be introduced & implemented by & through a neutral & legitimate platform like the UN.

However, despite multiple warnings & statements in this regard, i haven't received any response from the UN so far.

Note: One might wonder why i don't introduce my plan or at least some parts of my plan openly & publicly in this blog. In response to this question, i should state that there have been many examples in the past that i have introduced a plan for some event; but my overall rights with regards to that plan & its implementation have been ignored & violated by some actor/s. As a result of this type of unfair practice of some individuals & entities, i don't release any detail about my plan in this blog since 2013.As an example in this regard, my plan for "Chemical Disarmament" of Syrian government could be mentioned. Two days following the chemical attack in Syria (21.08.2013) i designed this plan and after many efforts, without receiving any positive response, i finally uploaded in my blog.The title of Plan: "A Plan That Might Save The World From An Additional Disaster" (Irancare).M. Sirani 10.09.2018

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Following the World War 2, some pundits or politicians within the USA could design any plan whatsoever and impose it to the rest of the world by using some advantages such as the economic & military leverages of the USA. Those years are over due to many factors including the fact that our world has gone through various changes in different terms and the notion that the current USA cannot use its economic & military power the same as it did in 1960s or 70s; although the current USA is still the most powerful country in our world in these areas. In this respect the Middle East is a good example. According to the media, J. Kushner would get advise from H. Kissinger with regards to many issues in the Middle East including in case of Israeli and Palestinian peace process. The failure of this case does not need any further argument and explanation, when we observe the Palestinian authority does not talk with anyone from Trump administration anymore. So would be the case of Syria & Yemen. When it comes to Syria, in a very best case scenario and extremely optimistic manner, Syria would become something chaotic like current Iraq; if not Afghanistan. IN case of Yemen, the USA & Saudi-Led coalition, will experience a quagmire worse than Afghanistan.

Some claims that the recent rapprochement between Trump and Putin is also Kissinger's plan for curbing & countering China. In this respect, i can say that the essence of this plan is correct. One way to curb China is detaching Russia from China. However, the way that Trump is going to implement this plan is totally wrong from different direction. In short, this plan, the way that Trump wants to implement it, would lead not only to the total failure but also would damage the Western Bloc from various directions.
In addition to this plan mentioned above, i have another plan for curbing & countering China. I don't reveal this plan, because of its devastating negative consequences in different terms for the entire world including the massive population size of China.

In short, as i have repeatedly said, the plans of all actors involved in various tensions across the Middle East, without any exception, would end up into total failure. The result would be only more collateral damages, further destruction, more refugees and displaced people, broader battlefield and nothing else. As far as i follow the moves & policies of all actors in the Middle East, i can say with high certainty that i am the only one, who can clean up the mess in the entire Middle East & part of Africa by implementing My Master Plan. I hope the responsible entities in this regard including the UN would come to my conclusion as soon as possible; before it's too late.

Trump uses "Russia Troll" to milk the EU, Canada & Australia in different terms including getting a good trade deal, selling U.S. weapons, oil & gas to them. By closing to Putin & Russia, Trump would try to create a headache for China as well. In addition to these issues, Trump has a bigger plan in his mind and that is, developing a new world order by the help of Russia. If Trump would be able to convince Putin to become a close ally to the USA, Trump would be able to achieve his goal. Should this happen, Trump would be able to have full control about most part of energy resources around the world (USA+Russia+Arab States). As such, Trump would be able to impose the U.S. hegemony on most part of the world including on China and the EU as two tough economic competitors for the USA. In such a hypothetical scenario, Trump would be able to curb & counter Iran a hostile enemy of Israel in the Middle East, by the help of Russia as well.

I don't have any doubt about the will & desire of Trump in this regard. Whether Putin would agree to play in this game of Trump or not is the important issue in this regard. The correct answer to this question in an extremely determinant factor in analysis about the new world order and occurrence of many events at regional and global levels in the next coming years.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

As the president of the USA, Trump has the legitimate & legal authority to withdraw from NATO. Would Trump do that or not, depends on many issues & factors. This is a fact that without a powerful military wing, no super power or a powerful state has been able to either conquer the world or impose its hegemony on most parts of the world. There is no such an example in the entire history. So is the case of the USA under the presidency of Trump. In order to implement and impose his doctrine on most parts of the world, Trump needs a strong army. Would this desirable army be only NATO? For Trump the answer to this question is highly likely no. For Trump, the ends justify the means in an extremely Machiavellian Manner. We should bear in mind that for Trump, the EU & China are the serious threats and strong barrier, not Russia. When it comes to economic expansion, both China & the EU are trying to surpass the USA.

When it comes to military power, China is rising and some EU states are nuclear armed states. In comparison with China & the EU, Russia cannot pose a serious threat for Trump at this stage. Russia is a nuclear armed state and has powerful military apparatus. But, when it comes to economic power & economic expansion, Russia is not a serious threat for the USA and the way that Trump thinks. On the contrary, Russia has fast amount of natural resources, gas and oil, and is one of the main providers of these resources for China & the EU, two main barriers for Trump & his doctrine.

In my opinion, this is the main foundation of Trump's doctrine: Curbing, countering and controlling China & the EU. One of the main tools in order to achieve such a hegemonic position, is Russia. If Trump would be able to be allied with Russia, Trump can easily impose U.S. hegemony on China & the EU and accordingly preserve the U.S. hegemony at global level. In this respect, Trump would also try to use the UK. In addition, a close relationship with Russia at the level of my hypothetical scenario, would give Trump a strong hand with regards to fully curbing & countering Iran in the Middle East. Such an event, would collect enormous support for Trump from various directions from Israel and oil-rich Arab States.

To put it simply, i can say Trump will undoubtedly withdraw from NATO, if he would be able to make a good, certain & comprehensive deal with Putin & Russia. Should this happen, Trump would obtain the main sources of energy around the world (USA, Russia & Arab States), and by this tool, Trump can impose the U.S. hegemony on most parts of the world mainly China & the EU; two tough economic competitors. We should also bear in mind that in this regard, Trump would not be alone. There are many right wings political powers in the entire EU. Some of these states are currently member of NATO. In case of my hypothetical scenario, many of these states will undoubtedly join Trump army in a completely new military framework. A type of hijacking NATO.

Whether, Putin & Russia agree with this plan and follow Trump or not depends on many factor, beyond the scope of this brief explanation. The only thing that i can say is that there are many historical potentialities &possibilities for Putin & Russia at the present time, whether we like it or not.

The plans of the USA, Israel, Arab States, Iran & Russia with regards to various tensions & conflicts across the entire Middle East will hit the wall without any exception. This includes the two ongoing peace plans of the UN for Syria and Yemen as well. The only results of these ongoing conflicts would be more death, destruction, more refugees, displaced people and broader battlefield & nothing else.
Hereby this short note, i ask the international community to let me use my expertise and extraordinary talent in Conflict Resolution and ease the tension, solve some of the current conflicts and prevent further death, destruction and disastrous events for the entire Middle East and some parts of Africa. Let me use my EXTRAORDINARY TALENT and save the life of hundreds of thousands innocent people; before it's too late and we have reached the devastating point of no return in this regard.